Ed Decker

[Luzia]

A friend of mine send me a book that speaks about this movie and about LDS beliefs and comparsions.

I have read some of it and all.

Has anyone read it?

What do you think of it?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Jason]

Ed Decker has sensationalized many LDS teachings to make them look bad. That said, many LDS teachings don't need sensationalizing to look bad.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 10 2004, 05:28 PM

Ed Decker has sensationalized many LDS teachings to make them look bad. That said, many LDS teachings don't need sensationalizing to look bad.

Now, now Jason, coming from one who recently is turning to Catholicism, we can't let that remark go unremarked. Those who attend glass churches shouldn't hurl lumps or masses of hard consolidated mineral matter.

[Maureen]

I don't understand or know Ed Decker's agenda. He obviously has problems with Mormonism and seems to require extra drama when sharing his opinion of it. I agree with Jason. Mr Decker seems to need to exaggerate for reasons only he knows.

M.

[srm]

Originally posted by Maureen@May 11 2004, 08:49 AM

I don't understand or know Ed Decker's agenda. He obviously has problems with Mormonism and seems to require extra drama when sharing his opinion of it. I agree with Jason. Mr Decker seems to need to exaggerate for reasons only he knows.

M.

I know why Ed exaggerates.

$

[Jason]

"Now, now Jason, coming from one who recently is turning to Catholicism, we can't let that remark go unremarked." (Snow)

And a fascinating journey it's been. Actually, Im leaning heavily towards the Old Catholics, as opposed to the Roman or Orthodox variety. As for an Ex-Mo, Old Catholicism is a much friendlier alternative to move into than RCC or OCC offers. (No Papal Infalliablilty, Immaculate Conception, or required Celebacy of Clergy. A much closer alternative to early Catholicism as practiced by the Church Fathers.)

"Those who attend glass churches shouldn't hurl lumps or masses of hard consolidated mineral matter." (Snow)

Ah, but the Granite of the Temples should resist my, um, matter.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by srm+May 11 2004, 12:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ May 11 2004, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@May 11 2004, 08:49 AM

I don't understand or know Ed Decker's agenda. He obviously has problems with Mormonism and seems to require extra drama when sharing his opinion of it. I agree with Jason. Mr Decker seems to need to exaggerate for reasons only he knows.

M.

I know why Ed exaggerates.

$

Really? How does that make him money? Is he rich because of his exaggerated anti position?

M.

[broadway]

Ed Decker is a former member of our church that had constantly been cheating on his wife. His life tells a lot about whether this man is trust-worthy or not. I actually read the book in high school and did a thesis paper based on it. My purpose was to prove that mormonism is a cult and a lie. I received a 100 on the paper. Also, let me tell you I went to a private high school ran by a baptist church.

Since then I have realized some of the things are really absurd. The best way of dealing with friend of your is to ask her if she has any questions she would like to ask you or the missionaries. We will not lie to her about our beliefs. All she has to do is be honest with herself. Getting anti-propaganda isn't the best way to learn what the church actually teaches. Where would she tell you to go in order to get info on her church's beliefs? We do not ask anything different than that. You want to know about us? Come ask us.

Our church has some rather bold and different beliefs, this is true. This does not make them incorrect. We should not be overly-worried about evading questions about becoming Gods, living with God in the pre-mortal existance, Satan being Christ's spiritual brother, Kolob, or anything else that gets streched WAY out of its original truth. Addressing these issues right away as they come up will be the best way to get the out of the way so that you can properly teach her the more important, more releveant things about the gospel to her...such as Faith Repentance and Baptism.

Stressing to her that she will never have to worry about becoming a god if she can't grasp the first things first. Faith is essential to it all. Without it, there is no chance to become a god.

[Jason]

"Ed Decker is a former member of our church that had constantly been cheating on his wife. His life tells a lot about whether this man is trust-worthy or not. " (broadway)

Decker's immorality (true or not) has nothing to do with his work on mormonism. Let's focus on the issues, not the man.

"I actually read the book in high school and did a thesis paper based on it. My purpose was to prove that mormonism is a cult and a lie. I received a 100 on the paper."

So that makes you an expert on the man? I've read more than just the initial book and I've seen his videos. I've read nearly everything on his website, and I've corresponded with him. All of this and I still don't know him very well.

"Also, let me tell you I went to a private high school ran by a baptist church."

So what? You got an "A" on a high school paper, and now you've found the truth in spite of your pre-conceptions?

"Since then I have realized some of the things are really absurd."

Admitting oneself to be foolish is a bold thing to do.

"The best way of dealing with friend of your is to ask her if she has any questions she would like to ask you or the missionaries."

Sounds like she doesn't know much. Missionaries are typically the least informed individuals on Mormon doctrine there are. Tell her to talk to an Institute professor.

"We will not lie to her about our beliefs."

If you knew all of them....

"All she has to do is be honest with herself. Getting anti-propaganda isn't the best way to learn what the church actually teaches. Where would she tell you to go in order to get info on her church's beliefs? We do not ask anything different than that. You want to know about us? Come ask us."

The problem is that the average Mormon doesn't know their history. They don't know that previous to 1891, Men were sealed to General Authorities, not to their ancestors. They don't know that Brigham had more men sealed to him in temple ceremonies than he had naturally! (Did you know that?)

"Our church has some rather bold and different beliefs, this is true."

"This does not make them incorrect."

"We should not be overly-worried about evading questions about becoming Gods, living with God in the pre-mortal existance, Satan being Christ's spiritual brother, Kolob, or anything else that gets streched WAY out of its original truth."

Yes you should. If you want converts that is...

"Addressing these issues right away as they come up will be the best way to get the out of the way so that you can properly teach her the more important, more releveant things about the gospel to her...such as Faith Repentance and Baptism."

"Stressing to her that she will never have to worry about becoming a god if she can't grasp the first things first. Faith is essential to it all. Without it, there is no chance to become a god."

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 11 2004, 07:17 PM

"Ed Decker is a former member of our church that had constantly been cheating on his wife. His life tells a lot about whether this man is trust-worthy or not. " (broadway)

Decker's immorality (true or not) has nothing to do with his work on mormonism. Let's focus on the issues, not the man.

Actually it does. Much of Eddie's antipathy toward the Church seems to flow from his inability to keep his pants zipped up outside of marraige. As an immoral lout, he blames the Church for the breakup of his marriage instead of his love of sin; he then attacks the Church on this account as part of his antiMormon jihad. He, by virtue of his utter lack of virtue, is the the issue. He lies about his adultery. He lies about Mormonism. Lying is part and parcel of his persona. In his case it is impossible to seperate the lies from the liar.

Sounds like she doesn't know much.  Missionaries are typically the least informed individuals on Mormon doctrine there are.

That quite an exaggeration. LDS Missionaries are better informed on LDS doctrine than 99.9 percent of the worlds population. They are a good start. Besides, salvation isn't a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of finding Christ. That doesn't require a scholar.

"We will not lie to her about our beliefs."

If you knew all of them....

Is your new-found benevolence wearing out already?

The problem is that the average Mormon doesn't know their history.

Why is that a problem? Do you believe salvation to be a matter of historical literacy? Besides which, I think that is a relatively untrue statement. I think it is easily demonstrable that Mormons are more historical literate on Mormon history than general Christians are on general Christianity. Do you think I am wrong?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Maureen@May 11 2004, 09:49 AM

I don't understand or know Ed Decker's agenda. He obviously has problems with Mormonism and seems to require extra drama when sharing his opinion of it. I agree with Jason. Mr Decker seems to need to exaggerate for reasons only he knows.

M.

"Extra drama"? Maureen gets my vote for understatement of the week.

[srm]

Originally posted by Luzia@May 10 2004, 08:56 AM

A friend of mine send me a book that speaks about this movie and about LDS beliefs and comparsions.

I have read some of it and all.

Has anyone read it?

What do you think of it?

HOLD THE PHONE!

I just read this post more carefully. Are you speaking 'bout Gilbert Scarffs (sp) book, "The Truth About The Godmakers"?

[Jason]

Snow,

I was a feeling a little fiesty yesterday. No harm intended. I believe that I took exception to the ad hominem attack against Decker. I just felt like tearing the rest of the post apart for fun.

Jason

[srm]

"We will not lie to her about our beliefs."

If you knew all of them...."

Is your new-found benevolence wearing out already?

I suspect he get more benevolent when he is backed into a corner...It helps one wiggle out. Heck, I've probably done it a time or two.

[Jason]

Well, since srm thinks I was backed into a corner....

"Much of Eddie's antipathy toward the Church seems to flow from his inability to keep his pants zipped up outside of marraige."

We can't prove this. He may just not like Mormonism. Or maybe he finds mormonism too unforgiving with adultery, while protestants are more forgiving?

"As an immoral lout, he blames the Church for the breakup of his marriage instead of his love of sin; he then attacks the Church on this account as part of his antiMormon jihad."

Perhaps "local" church authorities encouraged his wife to leave him, in stead of forgive??? Who knows.

"He, by virtue of his utter lack of virtue, is the the issue. He lies about his adultery. He lies about Mormonism. Lying is part and parcel of his persona. In his case it is impossible to seperate the lies from the liar."

Lying is a strong word. I'd say gross exaggeration is more accurate.

"LDS Missionaries are better informed on LDS doctrine than 99.9 percent of the worlds population. They are a good start."

Point taken.

"Besides, salvation isn't a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of finding Christ. That doesn't require a scholar."

I disagree. If one is misinfomed about core dogma, one cannot be saved. We should start a new post perhaps?

"Why is that a problem?"

Mormons baptise entirely too easily. Early christianity did not give away baptism like it was a copy of AOL 9.0. One had to earn the trust of the Saints, then undergo a serious study of the dogmas and doctrines of the church, then one could be baptised. (this could take as little as a few months to years.)

If mormons applied the same standards of time and study to baptism as they do to temple attendance, you'd see a different kind of convert.

"Do you believe salvation to be a matter of historical literacy?"

It's a big part. If you don't know what your getting into, are you truly converted?

"Besides which, I think that is a relatively untrue statement. I think it is easily demonstrable that Mormons are more historical literate on Mormon history than general Christians are on general Christianity. Do you think I am wrong?"

You must admit that we're talking about a history of less than 200 years, verses a history of 2000 years. It's a lot easier to learn less, agreed?

[Luzia]

Originally posted by srm+May 12 2004, 09:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ May 12 2004, 09:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Luzia@May 10 2004, 08:56 AM

A friend of mine send me a book that speaks about this movie and about LDS beliefs and comparsions.

I have read some of it and all.

Has anyone read it?

What do you think of it?

HOLD THE PHONE!

I just read this post more carefully. Are you speaking 'bout Gilbert Scarffs (sp) book, "The Truth About The Godmakers"?

No, I am actually talking about the book written by Ed Decker.

[broadway]

Ex-Mormon Jason,

You mischaracterized almost everything that I said. My point in saying that I received a 100 on an anti-mormon paper in a school ran by baptist church wasn't to point out that I am an expert in the subject. There were two reasons I posted that. The first was to point out the humor in it. (A 100 given by an infamously anti-mormon denomination to an anti-mormon paper) and also to point out that I was more than just skeptical of mormons when I investigated. In fact, the only reason I did investigate was to prove once and for all that mormonism was of the devil.

My point in bringing up his immorality was to point out that Mr Decker may have an alertior motive for going ex-mormon. His integrity has always been in question. This is important because why should anyone take as truth what he has to say. I suggest you (and anyone else) take a look at this website.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/pma/deckertext.html

You are right in that his infidelity and his lying about the church are two seperate issues, but that does not take away the truth of either situation. Thie link above posts some pretty significant misconduct done by our Mr Ed.

"Admitting oneself to be foolish is a bold thing to do.  "

It is even more bold to be a brazen stubborn fool and admit it to no one, and not change.

"Missionaries are typically the least informed individuals on Mormon doctrine there are. "

That was rather arbitrary. Any reason why you say this?

" Tell her to talk to an Institute professor.  "

This would be more difficult than getting a hold of a missionary. The purpose here was also for convience.

"If you knew all of them...."

Alright, then, I had already in the past invited you to give your reasons for becoming inactive or tranferring membership (or however you would like to put it...not trying to be sarcastic here). You didn't respond. No worries, I am sure you didn't notice my askingor you were just busy...so I will ask again. Added to that, I will ask you which beliefs you think that I am unfamiliar with.

"They don't know that previous to 1891, Men were sealed to General Authorities, not to their ancestors.  They don't know that Brigham had more men sealed to him in temple ceremonies than he had naturally!  (Did you know that?) "

I am unsure of why this makes any difference. I will have two males sealed to me and a female sealed to me. Eventually, I will be sealed to another man and woman. I do not see how this is wierd or against doctrine or... Perhaps I am misundertanding your reply. Are you inferring that he had males sealed to him as husbands or something?

"

"Our church has some rather bold and different beliefs, this is true."

 

"This does not make them incorrect."

"

Are you implying that believing a bold thing makes one incorrect? Then I suppose Jesus was incorrect. He was pretty bold in expressing his belief that He is the son of God and the Savior of the world. I suppose any of the prophets were incorrect since they were pretty bold in exclaiming a direct communication with God. If you are going to get into a discussion with me, I would appreciate some maturity. I am not out here to convert the world. I am here to seek the truth. You will be hard pressed to find someone else who is as willing to hear someone else's perspective as I am. If you want to point out something, do so. Do not make faces and call names (not saying you did). All that is unecessary. I promise.

I am not overly-worried about telling people the deeper doctrine of our chruch. I am here to tell the truth. It is up to the other person to decide how he or she takes it. I do not hide any part of my beliefs. Ask and I will give you an honest and complete-as-I-can-give answer.

"Addressing these issues right away as they come up will be the best way to get the out of the way so that you can properly teach her the more important, more releveant things about the gospel to her...such as Faith Repentance and Baptism."

Again, be mature and speak your mind. I cannot respond to faces.

"Stressing to her that she will never have to worry about becoming a god if she can't grasp the first things first. Faith is essential to it all. Without it, there is no chance to become a god."

I am noticing a pattern of evasivness.

Listen, if you want to discuss something, I am more than willing to hear your side of it. As a convert to the church, I am most interested in hearing the point-of-view of someone like you, an ex-mormon. All you need to do is speak your mind. Enough with the silly faces instead of answers or opinions. Ok? Fair enough? I have been trying to get you to give me your side of it since I met you.

broadway

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 08:24 AM

Snow,

I was a feeling a little fiesty yesterday. No harm intended. I believe that I took exception to the ad hominem attack against Decker. I just felt like tearing the rest of the post apart for fun.

Jason

Why on earth would that bother you? He is, in point of fact, a despicable excuse for a human being. Is it so wrong that it goes not unnoticed?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 01:04 PM

"He, by virtue of his utter lack of virtue, is the the issue. He lies about his adultery. He lies about Mormonism. Lying is part and parcel of his persona. In his case it is impossible to seperate the lies from the liar."

Lying is a strong word.  I'd say gross exaggeration is more accurate. 

Some "exaggerations" smell a lot like lies, like:

-The Temple spires are designed to imale Christ on His return;

-The Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple is lined with human skulls;

-Temple ordinances involve writing '666' on your forehead in blood;

-There is an exact mockup of the Oval Office at Salt Lake in preparation for the day the "Mormons" take over the world;

on and on, and 'exaggeration' is an awfully nice word for these tales.

[broadway]

Originally posted by Outshined+May 12 2004, 06:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ May 12 2004, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 01:04 PM

"He, by virtue of his utter lack of virtue, is the the issue. He lies about his adultery. He lies about Mormonism. Lying is part and parcel of his persona. In his case it is impossible to seperate the lies from the liar."

Lying is a strong word.  I'd say gross exaggeration is more accurate. 

Some "exaggerations" smell a lot like lies, like:

-The Temple spires are designed to imale Christ on His return;

-The Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple is lined with human skulls;

-Temple ordinances involve writing '666' on your forehead in blood;

-There is an exact mockup of the Oval Office at Salt Lake in preparation for the day the "Mormons" take over the world;

on and on, and 'exaggeration' is an awfully nice word for these tales.

Take a look at the website link I posted in my above post. There are a few more 'exaggerations'.

[Jason]

"You mischaracterized almost everything that I said." (broadway)

Well, that must be why you're clarifying it now.

"My point in bringing up his immorality was to point out that Mr Decker may have an alertior motive for going ex-mormon."

Motive for leaving the mormon church, and reasons why he stayed out are different subjects.

"His integrity has always been in question."

So what. He's also a whiner. Who cares?

" This is important because why should anyone take as truth what he has to say. I suggest you (and anyone else) take a look at this website."

Im really not interested in his character. He could be a child molesting faggot for all I care. It wouldn't make his or anyone else's research any less valid. Do you understand that? We're not voting for the next church prez here...

"You are right in that his infidelity and his lying about the church are two seperate issues..."

Thanks.

"... but that does not take away the truth of either situation."

As I've stated above, his immorality doesn't matter. His exaggerations matter. His research matters.

"It is even more bold to be a brazen stubborn fool and admit it to no one, and not change."

You obviously haven't been here long.

"That was rather arbitrary. Any reason why you say this?"

Having known quite a few missionaries, they generally know little more than what's contained in the six discussions. A few will venture out and look at the standard church issued books (Talmage, Richards, Hinckley, etc) but nothing with any real teeth in it.

"This would be more difficult than getting a hold of a missionary. The purpose here was also for convience."

How about a nice internet search at the local library? (lds.org, utah lighthouse minstry, farms, shields, one of those nifty gospel cd's, etc...)

"Alright, then, I had already in the past invited you to give your reasons for becoming inactive or tranferring membership (or however you would like to put it...not trying to be sarcastic here). You didn't respond. No worries, I am sure you didn't notice my askingor you were just busy...so I will ask again. Added to that, I will ask you which beliefs you think that I am unfamiliar with."

Have we met before? I don't ever recall talking to you. My reasons? I didn't like that the lds church had changed so many of their doctrines. Here's a little list I made up several years ago:

Blessing the Water before Baptism,

Re-baptism,

Baptism for the dead,

Baptism for Health,

The Law of Adoption,

The Marriage Ordinance,

The True Order of Prayer,

The Sacrament,

The duties of a Bishop,

The office and duties of a Stake or General Bishop,

The duties of a Deacon,

The duties of a Teacher,

The duties of a Priest,

The duties of an Elder,

The duties of a Seventy,

The duties of an High Priest,

The Office of Patriarch to the Church,

Missionaries without purse or script,

The Doctrine of Gathering,

The Law of Tithing,

The Law of Consecration,

The Law of Sacrifice,

The Law of Chastity,

The Doctrine of Calling and Election,

The Holy Embrace,

The Fullness of the Priesthood,

The Church of the Firstborn and The Holy Order,

The Kingdom of God,

The Council of Fifty,

The Holy Ghost,

The Women’s Resurrection Claim,

The Washing of Feet Ordinance,

Women’s Confinement Blessing,

Ordinances for Childbirth by Women for Women,

The Doctrine of Eternal Lives,

The Mysteries of Godliness,

Personal Revelation,

Parents Responsibility to Teach Their Children,

Homosexuality,

Abortion and Murder.

"I am unsure of why this makes any difference. I will have two males sealed to me and a female sealed to me. Eventually, I will be sealed to another man and woman. I do not see how this is wierd or against doctrine or... Perhaps I am misundertanding your reply. Are you inferring that he had males sealed to him as husbands or something?"

Um, the original doctrine of temple sealings intended to seal the participant to a higher priesthood authority, not to ones ancestors. Wilford Woodruff changed that after many mormons complained in 1891.

"Are you implying that believing a bold thing makes one incorrect?"

No, I was mocking the use of the word: "different".

"If you are going to get into a discussion with me, I would appreciate some maturity."

"I am not out here to convert the world."

I am. The Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded, and the only one He recognizes today as holding the Keys of Authority. (How's that?)

"I am here to seek the truth."

Okay. You're welcome.

"You will be hard pressed to find someone else who is as willing to hear someone else's perspective as I am. If you want to point out something, do so. Do not make faces and call names (not saying you did). All that is unecessary. I promise."

I use humor in my posts because too many people around here get a little hot under the collar if you get my drift. It's not meant to be offensive.

"I am not overly-worried about telling people the deeper doctrine of our chruch. I am here to tell the truth. It is up to the other person to decide how he or she takes it. I do not hide any part of my beliefs. Ask and I will give you an honest and complete-as-I-can-give answer."

You may not be worried, but your prophet is. Are you following the example of your prophet?

"Listen, if you want to discuss something, I am more than willing to hear your side of it. As a convert to the church, I am most interested in hearing the point-of-view of someone like you, an ex-mormon. All you need to do is speak your mind. Enough with the silly faces instead of answers or opinions. Ok? Fair enough? I have been trying to get you to give me your side of it since I met you."

Again, I don't recall ever seeing you here before. Sorry. (And I like the faces, they lighten the mood.)

[broadway]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 07:24 PM

"My point in bringing up his immorality was to point out that Mr Decker may have an alertior motive for going ex-mormon."

Motive for leaving the mormon church, and reasons why he stayed out are different subjects. 

"His integrity has always been in question."

So what.  He's also a whiner.  Who cares? 

" This is important because why should anyone take as truth what he has to say. I suggest you (and anyone else) take a look at this website."

Im really not interested in his character.  He could be a child molesting faggot for all I care.  It wouldn't make his or anyone else's research any less valid.  Do you understand that?  We're not voting for the next church prez here...

I am unsure what your reason was for pointing out that a reason to leave and reason for staying out are different subjects. Could you go into that further?

The link I posted said more about his claims about the church than they did his character. Please, just peek at it to see what it is before you disregard it. You will see that it isn't a site to bash him so much as it is his claims...though I was only able to get through 1/8 of it. There is a lot there about his claims and their falsities.

Why don't you take into account his personal conduct when deciding whether a person would have an alterior motive. He was excommunicated, so that may have left him imbittered about it. It would be one thing if the things he were saying we true. But they aren't. It goes along with his integrity. That is why I brought it up.

[Jason]

"I am unsure what your reason was for pointing out that a reason to leave and reason for staying out are different subjects. Could you go into that further?"

Well, he might have had only one real reason for leaving, but upon further investigation, he may have discovered even more reasons for not returning. (Did that make sense?)

"The link I posted said more about his claims about the church than they did his character. Please, just peek at it to see what it is before you disregard it. You will see that it isn't a site to bash him so much as it is his claims...though I was only able to get through 1/8 of it. There is a lot there about his claims and their falsities."

Oh, all right. But really, Decker's mission lost most of it's steam at least a decade ago. More reputable "anti mormons" have even dismissed his claims and exaggerations.

"Why don't you take into account his personal conduct when deciding whether a person would have an alterior motive."

We all have an ulterior motive. Does that really change facts?

"He was excommunicated, so that may have left him imbittered about it."

True. But that still doesn't change the facts (or lies as many here state).

"It would be one thing if the things he were saying we true. But they aren't. It goes along with his integrity. That is why I brought it up."

Okay.

[broadway]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 07:24 PM

"It is even more bold to be a brazen stubborn fool and admit it to no one, and not change."

You obviously haven't been here long. 

no I haven't.

"That was rather arbitrary. Any reason why you say this?"

Having known quite a few missionaries, they generally know little more than what's contained in the six discussions.  A few will venture out and look at the standard church issued books (Talmage, Richards, Hinckley, etc) but nothing with any real teeth in it. 

This is interesting, then. How could these guys grow up in the chruch (for most of them did, wouldn't you say? Not all, but the majority.) and not know more about their own chruch than the six discussions? The ones that I have talk to know quite a bit about the gospel despite the fact that they aren't supposed to read anything but the scriptures and the Missionary Library stuff (you know what that is, right? Just making sure. I do not want to assume anything)

"This would be more difficult than getting a hold of a missionary. The purpose here was also for convience."

How about a nice internet search at the local library?  (lds.org, utah lighthouse minstry, farms, shields, one of those nifty gospel cd's, etc...)

I do not live near any LDS colleges, so I can't really refer anyone to a professor. Perhaps the original lady does and can. I know that the missionaries wouldn't say anything but church sanctioned things rather than opinions and theories. This is important. Once you get into theories, things can get sketchy and possibly even more argumentive.

Have we met before?  I don't ever recall talking to you.  My reasons?  I didn't like that the lds church had changed so many of their doctrines.  Here's a little list I made up several years ago:

 

Blessing the Water before Baptism,

Re-baptism,

Baptism for the dead,

Baptism for Health,

The Law of Adoption,

The Marriage Ordinance,

The True Order of Prayer,

The Sacrament,

The duties of a Bishop,

The office and duties of a Stake or General Bishop,

The duties of a Deacon,

The duties of a Teacher,

The duties of a Priest,

The duties of an Elder,

The duties of a Seventy,

The duties of an High Priest,

The Office of Patriarch to the Church,

Missionaries without purse or script,

The Doctrine of Gathering,

The Law of Tithing,

The Law of Consecration,

The Law of Sacrifice,       

The Law of Chastity,

The Doctrine of Calling and Election,

The Holy Embrace,

The Fullness of the Priesthood,

The Church of the Firstborn and The Holy Order,

The Kingdom of God,

The Council of Fifty,

The Holy Ghost,

The Women’s Resurrection Claim,

  The Washing of Feet Ordinance,

Women’s Confinement Blessing,

Ordinances for Childbirth by Women for Women,

The Doctrine of Eternal Lives, 

The Mysteries of Godliness,

Personal Revelation,

Parents Responsibility to Teach Their Children,

Homosexuality,

Abortion and Murder. 

As this is a long list and I doubt that there would be anything about this on lds.org how about an overview? You could even start a new thread. I would like that very much so that I can see both sides to it. I would very much appreciate this. And thank you for doing even as much as you did.

Um, the original doctrine of temple sealings intended to seal the participant to a higher priesthood authority, not to ones ancestors.  Wilford Woodruff changed that after many mormons complained in 1891. 

I can certainly see why, can't you? There weren't many members. If one's ansestors weren't LDS, how could he be sealed to them? I think it sounds like a pretty good make-do solution until there are more members.

"Are you implying that believing a bold thing makes one incorrect?"

No, I was mocking the use of the word: "different". 

I am lost. But this is nothing new. At least when I am lost now-a-days, I can blame it on my pregnancy...

"If you are going to get into a discussion with me, I would appreciate some maturity."

 

Cute.

I am.  The Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded, and the only one He recognizes today as holding the Keys of Authority.  (How's that?)

That is fine. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs.

I use humor in my posts because too many people around here get a little hot under the collar if you get my drift.  It's not meant to be offensive. 

I see. I misunderstood your motives, then. Sometimes you did use faces rather than give answers. This infers that the answer is so obvious that only an idiot would ask the question or make whatever comment. I took a little offense (offense is too strong a word though) at that. Faces are fine as long as they are accompanied by a comment.

"I am not overly-worried about telling people the deeper doctrine of our chruch. I am here to tell the truth. It is up to the other person to decide how he or she takes it. I do not hide any part of my beliefs. Ask and I will give you an honest and complete-as-I-can-give answer."

You may not be worried, but your prophet is.  Are you following the example of your prophet? 

You show me where it is said that I am not allowed to answer a straight question with an honest answer. I am familiar with the idea of 'milk before the meat' but if a direct question os asked, and the Spirit prompts me, I feel that I can give a direct answer. As long as the conversation hasn't turned into a debate or arguement, I see no reason why the prophet would disagree with my answering questions.

Again, I don't recall ever seeing you here before.  Sorry.  (And I like the faces, they lighten the mood.)

Am I that invisible?

broadway